MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research on Hyperpaths in the Urban Rail Transit Network

2014· article· en· W1974241804 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Hai Li, Jian Feng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban rail transitConvergence (economics)Path (computing)Shortest path problemComputer scienceAlgorithmBeijingLine (geometry)Mathematical optimizationScale (ratio)MathematicsTransport engineeringEngineeringTheoretical computer scienceComputer networkGeographyGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperpaths enumeration is one of the basic procedures in many traffic planning issues. As a result of its distinctive structure, hyperpaths in Urban Rail Transit Network (URTN) are different from those in road network. Typically, one may never visit a station more than once and would never transfer from one line to another that has been visited in a loopless URTN, meaning that stations a hyperpath traversed cannot be repeated, neither do lines in loopless networks. This paper studies the relationships between feasible path and the shortest path in terms of travel costs. In this paper, a new definition of hyperpath in URTN is proposed and a new algorithm based on the breadth first searching (BFS) method is presented to enumerate the hyperpaths. The algorithm can safely avoid hyperpath omission and can even be applied in networks containing loops as well. The influence of parameters on hyperpaths is studied by experimentally finding hyperpaths in the subway network in Beijing. A group of suggested parameter pairs are then given. Finally, a numerical experiment is used to illustrate the validity of the proposed algorithm. The results imply the significance of the convergence of the BFS algorithm which can be used to search hyperpaths in large scale URTN even with loop.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207